Is digital REALLY cheaper than film?

[phineas_tarbolde1]

This past year is the first year I have been taking digital pics

exclusively...doing the odd portrait sessions here and there.

 

As a photo.net member has pointed out, and I agree with him, the amount of time

consumed by digital post processing surely outweighs the cost of film and film

processing. Time fiddling around with Photoshop, the learning curve to re-learn

new versions of Photoshop, Lightroom, etc is incredibly time consuming. Then

there is time fiddling with hardware set ups, updateing software, reading the

telephone-book-thick manuals etc.

 

Sure as someone pointed out some people have streamlined the workflow to a

science (e.g. batch processing, plug-ins etc.).., but in no time CS4 is out and

you have to relearn everything once again.

 

Frankly I'm kinda missing the days where I aimed as far as it is possible to

"make" the photo in camera and have a good lab (taking the burden off me)

process it.

[eric_guel]

Phineas,

 

I find that some photographers (most?) absolutely LOVE spending hours in front of their computer, editing small details in Photoshop (I know, I'm being hyperbolic here).

 

Personally, I've never liked photo editing.

[errolyoung]

You never made the photo in the camera. You only did part of it. The photo processor did you colour balancing, exposure correction and sharpening.

 

In other words, digital gives the control of that back to you just like the days when we locked ourselves in the darkroom, adjusted the exposure, and the contrast.

 

Welcome back.

 

Errol

[savagesax]

Everything has dropped in price. Labs offer decent prices on digital proofing, no film costs, no developing costs. Camera's are a lot more expensive.

 

The old time retouchers were expensive. Now you can do it yourself. Wedding photographers went from shooting 300 shots per wedding on film, keeping the price down, to 2000. In the film days everytime you took a shot it was about $1. No way around that. Now there is no limits. The cost is the same if you take 1 shot or 4000.

 

I actually think it costs much less if you don't figure in your time behind a computer. If you do I feel digital in some cases can cost more. Depends how good you are at editing and making wedding books.

[ronald_moravec1]

Consider the limited life of digi cams too. Some of my Leicas are 50 years old. My nikon will be in a landfill long before then.

 

You still can always present the best JPEGS your camera can make to the processor just like film. But the same care must be used as you did when you used film when making the shot. There is additional control should you choose to use it called photoshop.

[mike_earussi1]

Digital is much faster, not slower than film, especially as regards the learning curve, since you get instant feedback from you shots. In the last 5 mounths I've taken over 4500 shots which I figure would have cost over $1000 (I use to shoot slide film), more than I paid for my camera. So in my experience, digital is not only faster but cheaper than film as well.

[susan_flewelling]

The year before I went digital I spent a little over $20,000 at a lab. WOW!! Last year I made quite a bit more $$ and I shot less weddings (because of going digital. So in the long run I do about the same amount of work and I make quite a bit more. To me it is totally worth it. If things are taking to long shoot in raw, the workflow is very fast. I figure (ask anyone who knows me I totally track things like this) that I only work about 3 hours more now on a wedding then I used to and that includes only doing digital albums which is a majority of the time difference. Not only that but I enjoy shooting again because of all the fun I have doing albums and ps stuff. Not only that but I enjoy shooting because it doesn't cost me a mint when I press the shutter. I can do series of photos and not limit myself to just the basics because the package they chose was my smallest.

[danielransom]

What Susan says is the best part. You make a known, initial equipment investment, and the

rest should be fun. I like knowing how much I have spent, and how much I won't have to in

the future.

[jwhite3.0]

"Consider the limited life of digi cams too. Some of my Leicas are 50 years old. My nikon will be in a landfill long before then."

 

Digital cameras haven't been out there long enough to determine a "limited life". Most of everyone I know has had their digi cams for years with no issues. If a shutter goes bad then it can be replaced along with other parts <as long as the parts are available but this can be said about 50 year old Leicas>. As long as there are repair and electronic shops digi cams can be repaired and have a long life. My buddy who is an engineer can pretty much fix anything I throw at him. Will digi cams last as long as Leica's? Don't know and it doesn't matter. If I get 5-10 years out of my camera then I'm ok with that. If I get 50 then great.

 

"Is digital REALLY cheaper than film?"

It's going to vary from person to person with no right or wrong answer and cannot be answered with a blanket statement. To Phineas I say, don't miss the days of using film just get out there and use it. Sounds like you'd be happier with film and that's perfectly fine.

[petemillis]

Phineas, maybe you spend take too many pictures of each subject then spend too long picking out the best the ones and then post processing. I like to keep it simple and go about it the same way as if I was using a film camera - trying to take the shot with the final image in mind and taking most times one shot, at most two or three.

Then at the end of the day it's quick work to choose the ones I want. And I then keep post processing to a minimum with no more than a crop, a white balance (usually just clicking the auto white balance in Canon DPP does a good job), and a tweak of sharpness and contrast if necessary.

This has got to be much cheaper than film where you might shoot a roll of 36 exposures, pay for processing and prints, pick out 10 good ones, then have to pay for them to be enlarged and cropped and so on.

There's no reason why a change to digital should stop you from making the photo in the camera. And there's no reason why you should have to learn new versions of software or even use expensive photo software.

What sort of photography do you do? (I can't find any of your pictures for some reason).How about going out with your camera and using it as if you have a roll of 36 exposure film in it. Look for the good photo opportunities and think about the final shot, then when you've taken 36 shots, go home, open them on you PC, choose the ones that you think have some potential and just work on them doing no more than a crop, white balance and adjustments to sharpness and contrast. I bet you'll produce some great pictures with spending no more than a minute on each one. Now think of all the expense that would have gone into getting those pictures using a roll of film.

[Leonard-just-Leonard]

Yes, it is cheaper... per useable picture. Personally, I have found the time spent in PhotoShop is a waste of time overall... other than cropping and minor adjustments, if you didn't take the time and care to shoot the photograph properly in the first place, PS-ing it to the nth degree is almost like cheating.

 

This could be a bit of sour grapes on my part since I don't really know PS and investing countless hours in it right now is not a big priority. After burning off hundreds and hundreds of shots just to learn the new technology of digital, I now treat it almost the same as "spending money" on film.

 

With film if you got it wrong, too bad. Now you can get it wrong over and over, and spend even more time forcing it to be good exponentially.

[samcisa]

Do you process film by yourself? If not, I would compare it with taking jpegs and submitting

memory card to shop to do the prints. Time consuming - same. Cost - digital cheaper. If you

process film by yourself, depends on skill, either way if you want certain look, quality, etc.

Cost - digital cheaper, time consuming - depends on skill either way. Not to mention if you

want digital images (in 90% of professional applications required). Scanner able to resolve

decent dynamic range costs a lot of money. Doing it in shop (high quality) is very expensive

too. "Scanning" with digital is free. There is also convenience and control. Now, if you have

that special feeling - excitement waiting for film to be developed to see how you did, that

may be priceless.

[c.g._ouimet]

"Consider the limited life of digi cams too. Some of my Leicas are 50 years old. My nikon will be in a landfill long before then."

 

"Limited Life" and "Obsolescence" are often mis-used terms. Just because newer more advanced models become available doesn't mean the older ones start degrading or stop functioning.

[puck]

the overriding answer seems to be that digital is cheaper depending on what you do with it. i have been shooting digital since 2001. #

 

my very expensive moutain bike was stolen. insurance money came in. i decided to buy a much cheaper bike and spend the rest on buying a digital camera. dslr's were very expensive in those days. so upon visiting several shops and reading all the reviews in steve's digicam review site, i bought a canon sureshot s30. it had 3.3MP and had full manual control going upto iso 800. it was the most expensive item i had ever bought at uk pounds 450, which would be around 900 us dollars.

 

i operated the camera mostly at automatic and it gave better pictures that i had seen anywhere. i did read the manual about aperture priority, shutter priroty, chaging iso, going full manual, setting up white balance, shotting in raw, exposure compensation and all that but i found raw cumbersome and the tweaking simply got in the way of my shooting. since i was a keen mountainbiker, i shot a lot of landscapes, of coasts, walkways, forrests and even friendly gatherings. the camera always gave great result in my own eyes.

 

in 2006 i fell quite ill. i had an operation in october which had resulted in a 6 week break from everything. just before my operation, as something of a whim i had purchased an olympus om40 and third party 65-300 zoom. during those six weeks i joined this site, started reading up and experimenting with the camera. since then, i have hardly touched the old canon s30 except for snapshots. i have since acquires a bessa r, four lenses for it, an olympus om4 and seven lenses for it as well as all the accessories needed for an amateur. my films and slides are not great but they seem to be much betetr than what i had taken with my digicam. the digicam is still used indoors or to take family snaps where autofocus is needed. i find that i am taking better quality pictures with the digicam now that i understand properly what those manual settigns do for me.

 

recently, i spent a couple of days in london with my two nephews. they are around 8 and 5 and we went out sighseeing a lot. i shot around 80 pictures in two days. having gone through the set and after tweaking around, 41 of those appear to be of acceptable quality and i had them set up online for printing. it did work out a little cheaper for me, if not a great deal than using the manual cameras. where the digital came in very handy was in its compactness and definitely in having the autofocus. i would go through the dslr route but the bodies and lense combination is too expensive and too big for my liking. i can't afford a leica m8 and can't see myself being able to afford it for atleast a few years. so have started thinking about getting into the panasonic l1 route.

[jeff bishop]

I don't think digital is cheaper than film.

 

Digital cameras, while they don't use film (which saves money) get replaced every three or four years due to (practically scheduled) obsolesce. Like cars, their "value" is high when they are new. When they are used they are worth next to nothing. The marketing departments, while they readily bring up the price of film, fail to mention this fact.

 

Some examples over 5 years...

 

A Nikon D1H new in 2002 cost $4350. Now it's $550. a $3800. loss.

A Nikon D1X new in 2002 cost $5350. Now it's $650. a $4700. loss.

 

Unless you are a professional, this regular replacement and the money lost, far exceeds what would have been spent on film. Yet no one seems to notice or mind.

 

A digital image, whether taken that way or scanned from film, cost the exact same amount of money to print, regardless of the initial medium.

[bruce_margolis]

"As a photo.net member has pointed out, and I agree with him, the amount of time consumed by digital post processing surely outweighs the cost of film and film processing."

 

Phineas, some would say this is true. After all, your time is worth something. But there are many ways to measure cost.

 

Last night I did some moon shots. I could have shot a roll of film, taken it in to a lab, waited until they could get to it and, of course, hope they did a good processing job. Instead, I shot digital. I had a 'contact sheet' immediately after I finished.

 

I am willing to give up some time for immediate results and total control over my end product instead of waiting for some lab telling me this is the best they could do. If you don't like to do your own processing and don't mind the wait and are willing to give up control of your finished photo, film might be best for you. IMO this discussion is more about time than cost as a deciding factor.

[petemillis]

Jeff Bishop, the obselesence thing is a weakness in the consumer who feels they have to upgrade otherwise they won't have the latest camera and won't be able to take good pictures. I'm quite happy that there are people like this as it means there's a good amount of stuff that I can buy a year or three down the line when these people have felt the need to ditch their barely used very expensive camera so they can buy another very expensive camera that they'll again barely use, which they'll then sell in a year or three! My 10D with lens, spare battery and case that I bought a few weeks ago cost me about 15% of it's original 2003/4 value, and cost about 15% of Canon's current model. OK, so it might have ONLY 6.3MP, and some people now feel that they need double this, but so what - I can still take better pictures with this than many people can with the latest most expensive camera in the world, and I don't worry about it anywhere near as much as someone who has forked out ?1200 or whatever on a camera. It's the same with cars - I NEVER buy a new car. Instead I let some poor sod suffer the depreciation and buy when 3 years old.

Like all these things, it only gets really expensive for the people who are obsessive about having the latest hardware and software. But having the latest can't make someone take better pictures.

[petemillis]

Jeff, the examples of prices you gave apply just as much to film SLRs as some people are again obsessive about having the latest. I bought all my film SLRs cheap at a couple of years old. So someone's loss is always some else's gain!

[szrimaging]

I have one area where I have found it to be a huge help that I haven't seen anyone else mention.

 

Occasionally I have to shoot interiors and locations with varying light sources. With the power of raw files, I am able to take one picture, process it for the varying light temperatures, then blend them together.

 

Plus, I don't need to worry about acquiring and stocking certain films before I shoot, nor do I have to use an entire roll up before I can shoot at another ISO/temperature.

 

If you add up the total economic values of that, there is a huge boost to the pro-digital argument.

 

Oh, and Jeff, using the D1x as an example is kind of off base. It is a PRO level camera. It is meant for professionals. The expectation is that a pro will use that body till its death, or no longer serves his purpose. He will, by that point, have paid for the body 100%. Hopefully more than once. I think, looking at the current value (which I do not know) of a D70, D70s, D100, Rebel XT or other such body would be a better example.

 

Or if you want to stick in pro gear, what is the value of some of the older Leaf and Phase One backs?

[phyrpowr]

Shot the equivalent of three rolls of film today, just goofing around to see if some stuff might look good as a photo. Film cost would have been at least $20. Times forty weekends of casual shooting = $800. Two week vacation, another fifty rolls, another $1000. These are absurd lowball estimates for me, I'll nearly double that casually, definitely more than double on vacation.

 

I'd have a computer anyway, and lenses and tripod, etc. We're only talking cash outlay so far, and digital is looking real good. If I had no computer, less than $800 at BestBuy, and you're set for years. I'm on a comparative dinosaur desktop, that I could replace for less than $500, with better specs.

 

As to the time spent in post processing, I don't overgeek it. PS Elements and 7 are fine for me, and I don't have the need (now anyway) for a ton of plugins, or the latest this and that. Formerly, the ubergeeks spent all their dough on the latest film: you can do it or not, your choice. And since I get to control my output, I don't begrudge a minute spent at the screen.

 

Lots of folks go on about the thrill and joy of opening up their package of wonderful, perfect prints. I don't hear much about the

frustration of opening up yet another package of overexposed, color miscast ones, or the third trip to the lab to say "no, no, darken THIS, lighten THAT"...that we've ALL experienced

[sandysocks]

It's academic for me. Either keeps me perpetually broke. The interesting thing about digital is that I can outshoot my ability to manage and care for my images properly.

[sandysocks]

It's academic for me. Either keeps me perpetually broke. The interesting thing about digital is that I can outshoot my ability to manage and care for my images properly.

[jeff bishop]

There seems to have been some holes in my logic, which have been pointed out. I hadn't considered the 'swift obsolesce' to be a shortcoming of the consumer. I tied it to assumed technological advances. I have to agree with this new (to me) perspective. It makes good sense.

 

I left the computer out of the equation because everyone online has one anyway, and most likely would regardless of camera type they are using. Plus, I scan my slides, and at that point all are equal. Also, I happen to enjoy tweaking an image on the computer as much as I enjoy processing my film.

 

The advantage of shooting in different light sources also makes good sense. While those of us who shoot film can use a filter in these instances, filtering for tungsten isn't as good as using tungsten film; thus a disadvantage for film users.

 

I can't agree with the concept of the 'spray and pray' logic, and can't apply to it actually 'taking a photograph.' The thing I stumble with here is my own idea that "the photograph occurs in your mind and the camera is a tool to create it." The alternative (spray and pray) logic to this would be, "the photograph occurs in the camera and we use our minds as a tool to filter and find it." A video camera would serve this purpose far better than any camera of either format.

 

To stick with the original question about costs of the two mediums, I don't drop my film off at the local drugstore or Wal-Mart. I doubt anyone serious with their digital camera is handing over their memory card at the drugstore or Wal-mart either.

 

Much as the digital user will process and pick through his images and print what he chooses; I process my own film, choose the images I want and print those as well. A roll of Sensia costs $3.75 at Adorama and it costs me $2.66 for the E6 process (I do myself), leaving me with a total of $6.41 for 36 exposures. This is a total cost, from buying the film to scanning the image into the computer.

 

In this respect, the prints I get printed are exactly what I want and exactly how I want them. They are being printed from digital files, just like the digital camera. The point of "darken this, lighten that" isn't something I ever experience.

 

Unless I'm shooting in the controlled studio situation (where you're keeping about 30 of every 36 exposures), I generally print between 1 and 3 images from each roll of film. I don't print these myself, I send the files to a third party for the actual printing.

 

This low success rate of what I'm printing is based on composition. Focus and DOF are alway right where you put it, exposure is always dead on (film cameras use computers for exposure too) though you can shoot manual as well.

 

Staying in touch with the original thread, I do not shoot a roll of film a week. If I did, my cost for 52 rolls of film a year would be $333.32 This is a far cry from the (absurdly low) estimates of $1,800, which would be doubled with casual shooting (an estimated $3,600. a year expenditure in film) using those numbers. That would keep me in film and processing for the next 12 years.

 

Every film camera I own should easily see another 12 years of service, though most are over 20 years old right now.

 

For me, the question "Is digital REALLY cheaper than film?" The answer from me would be "No, it's not cheaper for how I shoot."

[hjoseph7]

"Is digital cheaper than film ?"

 

Back in the days, if you were doing your own development, Professional enlargers were selling for an average price of about $800, minus the lens. Much more if you decided to invest in a 4X5 enlarger. Then there were the chemicals, papers, color analyzers and a whole assortment of gadgets that were supposed to make your pictures come out even better. The average cost to develop a roll of 36 Exp 35mm film at a local lab back then, was about $10 bucks. More if you took it to a Professional lab.

 

A manual Nikon FM2(body only) was selling for about $600 back in the 1980's. An Olympus OM4 was selling for about $1400, allot less than your current Canon 5D, Nikon D2x, or Canon 1D Mark II. Then again, you still had your Leicas($2000-4000), Nikon F series and Hasseblads. Let's not even mention the prices of professional lenses, which were pratically out of reach for most.

 

Was the learning curve a little flatter ? Heck yeah, but if you ever visited the the B&W Film section on this forum you might think twice !

 

What I find amazing about Digital cameras, is that I can pick up my camera at any time of the day and as long as my battery is charged, go out and take pictures without even worrying about it.

 

As far as being your own professional lab, learning how to scan, learning Photoshop, RAW, LightRoom, learning how to print etc, you can do these things if you want to, but you can also take your your Card to the nearest drug store, plug it in to one of those Kodak machines and get some pretty decent looking 4X6s. If you need something more profesional there are plenty of labs out there that can do a much better job than you ever could at home.

 

Of course you have to pay for these services, just like back in the old days. 'Wink'

 

OK, I mentioned the good thing thing about Digital cameras, but what about film cameras. The truth of the matter is that film cameras came with allot more features than digital cameras, because half of the money manufacturing them was not spent on a costly digital sensor. Also, film cameras were made of Metal not excotic 'plastic'. There was no such thing as a wimpy 'shutter life-cycle'. Film cameras(the better ones) could be taken to any hostile, extreme environment without any problems. They could take hit and a drop too ! O course you could also use them as weapon if you had to.

 

I saw an add which is running in a couple of photography magazines lately for the Sigma SD14 35mm 'Digital' camera. It's a full page add showing a model's face close up, and every single little detail can be seen on her face. Tell you the truth, at first I was really impressed, until I saw a similar picture taken by a Newsweek photographer back in the late 1980's with a film camera and with the same exact details to the tee.

 

Is digital cheaper ? I think it is in the long run, but only if you shoot allot of pictures. If you are a typical weekend-warrior, then it would be cheaper to stick to film, considering the cost of the initial investment. However, if you shoot allot of pictures, then digital is much, much cheaper and way more convenient than film. This is just my opinion.

 

As far as editing pictures on your own, nothing beats Photoshop (or any one of the other Editing software packages). What would take hours in the darkroom, just takes a few seconds in photoshop, plus you get a preview of how the picture is going to turn out. This is a dream for most photographers, let's face it ! So is instant feedback, let's face it.

 

The learning curve is kind of steep, but only if you make it so. If you go out and take good pictures you wont need photoshop unless you want to get creative. Photoshop CS3 is running for about $700 last time I looked and there is probably going to be a (PS) CS4, CS5, CS6 next time you blink.

 

The only problem with me is that I never became a master with film. I was slowly heading that way, but then came digital. I still use film and slides allot because I often find it more convenient. All it takes its a trip to the corner drug store. Sometimes cheapness comes with peace of mind and convenience.

[phyrpowr]

Jweff Bishop makes a good point about processing your own film to cut costs, and of course if you don't shoot much the costs stay down.

And slides DO help out enormously in "outsource" printing frustration, as the lab sees just what you want

 

Harry J., I had a Nikkormat FT3 you could pound tent pegs with, and stil use for great shots. But I'll stand on my b*tch above about what you get back too often :) or maybe :(

 

For my friends who want a "good" camera, and who shoot rarely, I always take them down to my local store and help them pick out a used film camera, the prices are wonderful these days